kofddfjdfdfdff

But what would be incentives to using a PoS Bitcoin fork, as opposed to starting over with a fresh altcoin?

You see people firing up coal plants in your back yard? That's not an experience most people ever have.

Your comparison does not make sense, though. The question is, how many people who are not at risk from the disease do you have to vaccinate, and how many people are there who can not be vaccinated and would contract Covid-19. Let's say with your numbers there are thousands of (young) people who die from the vaccination. How many people who can't be vaccinated would die if those young people would not get the vaccination?

What other risky things to we ask citizens to do, exactly? People certainly choose to do other risky things. But how many are mandated?

Why do you say it is "deemed acceptable", if there is an ongoing discussion about it?

I should have added - risky for the person who might contract the disease.

In any case, yes, both disease and vaccination have risks, that should be weighed against each other. Matters are complicated because risks differ among different age groups.

There is a nonzero risk to the vaccination. I really don't understand why you consider the plight of the people who can't get vaccinated, and dismiss the plight of the people who die or come down with severe disabilities from the vaccination.

But what about the people who died from the vaccine? They don't bother you at all? I think their relatives are pretty distraught right now.

Mandating medical interventions is pretty much taking away someone's liberties. And your opinions about other people's opinions are also irrelevant as an argument.

But who draws up the social contract?

It's not a harmless vaccine. You want to mandate vaccinating people who are at no risk from the disease, and expose them to unnecessary risks. And that means children - all to protect sick people who for the most part are already isolated. They are in hospitals or sick people homes, where you can protect them in other ways.

Also the comparison with other vaccines does not automatically make sense. All vaccines are not the same. At least in my country, so far recommendations for vaccinations had been "conservative" to only vaccinate against things that seem especially risky. There is a reason why people are not simply being vaccinated against all possible diseases.

"One can either be part of society or not. Society has minimum requirements if one wants to participate"

You make it sound as if there is a fixed, god given set of rules for society. That's not the case. Societies rules are constantly being negotiated by society.

So your argument is not an argument at all. It boils down to "you have to follow the rules because you have to follow the rules".

Except that the people who are worried can simply get vaccinated themselves.

There may be a few people who can not be vaccinated (old and very sick), but it hardly seems appropriate to restrict billions of people just to protect those few. It would be more efficient to isolate them, which most of them probably already are (in care homes or hospitals).

Even describing the lives of normal people would be interesting. The problem is that "feminist scholarship" carries a very real risk of history revisionism.

Because such books have an agenda behind them, unfortunately.

So she was popular and so - that probably was true for many, many people throughout history.

Not saying she wasn't a formidable thinker, but many people were and are. Only a few become famous because their inventions have long lasting effects.